g 

» » 5) '> 



, y> > s>„3> 

» > 7> L--> 

> > £3$ - > ^3> ^> 

1 "> >~>:> 3 3> ^> 

> > 



» :> :» :> ■> 
.>-.-■ > f_ 
> > > > > 
'-> > 

,-> >> a 
o 7> » 
, > z> » >■ 
;>> » » » >. 

■, > V) >> > <"'J» 

> » 1 

> 






53 S> > » 



» >• 5> 50* * » 

-.> > *5> > >>>> > 



» ^s> 3 ^ 






^)T> :^ 



■ 



5> »» S> 






» >j> 3>35 3> » -- 

^>o 2>:i3>/ • "> s> ..;» ■ 

-> >> >>> i_. 









T3:J> 
3>12S 



>. ^> ~> ^> ^x> ^" : 

ijkrz> T> 2> 3> > 






> \ 



2»i> 7> > > T> 



> sS> '-- 









bed "^* j j 3| ,-, >^ » > "^r> 






> > JO ) , 

> ^ 



> DD >~> 

- ■ » >> > >J» 
> » D 3 ^ 3> 



35 "' 






> > y}'Z> ^> -' X> 3 ?: _i 9 I^O 



> ^ > ■•) >» T 



>'^> >> 7> :T> >Z» 



>^ ) 






j> v> y^» 32? > ■■ ->> 3 , " > 
5^> - 32»3-> % > ' 3"S> :-:^ 

_>3) oe > ^ 

3 >33 §> 3 >>.), >■ ..■ ! 

'• >° >^> ' : 5 D»X>> 3P55.J6 

•' > ■> J> "> 7>' ) "> " 

3 >• >> ->->.■ >:: ■ 

y >> §>•: t>: - >> >■ 



> > > 

> 8 > 
> > 



S > > 

> > 



J> 5 > :> 



> 5 ;> 

;;> . >^ 

> > ». 

> » > 
"> > > 






> . > > 



»-> • 3> >» 3> 
> 3> 

> :> »> I> 

> > . >;» ^ 5 
> »> ^> % 



> > > > 

> > > T> 
> > > 



> > 

> > 

> :> 

> -> 

> > >_» > > 

* J -^$ > j> .:> . ' • 

^ ^ > 3> >»„. 

, ) -> ■> > 
>3> > o 
. > > 3> ' :> > 



> > > >> > > 

> > > ■ » > > 

> > > o > ;> 



>7> > 
>.v"5> Z> > 
>-;> !> > ;> 



;-3> > > 
^> -> •■»> j 

>0 > 



»■■> 



■ ) 



> > J»..^ 



• > 
■ > 

> 
> 






^ > :> > > ^> 






> 






>•> > > ^ > 



> 5> 















> .) ': 

> > 3 

► > 3 






>3 ■> 



i> > > > > 












>. } > ? ? . i> > > /> ; - 






> 

> > > 

> > 2* 



^ >> > ^ 

, » • > ■■ 



No. 14. 

THE 

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. 



ADDRESS 



FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, 



ON THE VIOLATION BY THE 



UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



OF THE 



RIGHT OF PETITION. 



o 



BY THE 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

t/ OF THE 

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. 



NEW YORK : 

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. 



1840. 



This No. contains 1 sheet. — Postage, under 100 miles, \\ ct. over 100, 2£ cts. 
IJC^- Please Read and circulate. _£Q 



Collected set. 






•Ttv 



ADDRESS 



To the Friends of Constitutional Liberty : — 

There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address 
would have included the People of the United States. But, alas ! 
the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, 
are now hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the 
perpetuity of human bondage ; while, by their political influence in the 
Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to 
unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these ines- 
timable privileges. 

On the 2Rth January last, the House of Representatives, on motion 
of Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing rule of the House 
that " no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Terri- 
tory of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by 
the House, or entertained in any way whatever." 

Thus has the right of petition been immolated in the very Tem- 
ple of Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of 
slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate 
been perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn 
the degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its attending 
circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits our struggle 
with the hateful power that now perverts the General Government 
into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression. 

Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your 
recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have 
advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and 
constitutional obligation. 

In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of 
disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of 
immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the 
recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000, 



for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As there 
was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried in 
Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own State, 
this reward was intended as the price of BLOOD. Do you start at the 
suggestion 1 Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000, 
and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain 
abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch 
clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the 
brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in Caro- 
lina, he would be HANGED. But, as the Slaveholders could not destroy 
the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder their charac- 
ters. Hence, the President of the United States was induced, in his 
Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with plotting the 
massacre of the Southern planters ; and even to stultify himself, by 
affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in sending, by mail, 
inflammatory appeals to the slaves — sending papers to men who could 
not read them, and by a conveyance through which they could not 
receive them ! He well knew that the papers alluded to were appeals 
on the immorality of converting men, women, and children, into beasts 
of burden, and were sent to the masters, for their consideration. The 
masters in Charleston, dreading the moral influence of these appeals 
on the conscience of the slave holding community, forced the Post 
Office, and made a bonfire of the papers. The Post Master General, 
with the sanction of the President, also hastened to their relief, and, in 
violation of oaths, and laws, and the constitution, established ten thou- 
sand censors of the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract 
from the mail every paper which lie might think too favorable to the 
rights of man. 

For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to 
Congress, for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
The right to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their 
prayer, were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplica- 
tion of these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they 
tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they 
deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all such 
applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836, de- 
claring, " that all petitions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any 
extent whatever to the subject of slavery, shall, without being printed 
or referred, be laid on the table ; and no further action, whatever 
shall be had thereon !" 

The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely 
trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each member 



of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the District, 
to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the 
protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws 
affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings ; 
but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in the 
streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could offer 
even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon constitu- 
tional liberty was avowedly perpetrated " to repress agitation, to allay 
excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among the vari- 
ous sections of the Union ! !" 

But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects antici- 
pated from it. In 1S36, the petitioners were only 37,000 — the next 
session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed 
to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude ; but, alas ! at 
the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new terror 
to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was prescribed by 
Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from their stupor some 
of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them to denounce his 
remedy as " a usurpation of power, a violation of the Constitution, sub- 
versive of the fundamental principles of the government, and at war 
with the prerogatives of the people."* It was now supposed that the 
people must be drugged by a northern man, and Atherton was found a 
fit instrument for this vile purpose ; but the dose proved only the more 
nauseous and exciting from the foul hands by which it was 
administered. 

In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was 
prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table, 
and therefore it was contended, that the right of petition had been pre- 
served inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the failure of 
all their devices, and fearing the influence which the mere sight of thou- 
sands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf of liberty, would 
exert, and. taking advantage of the approaching presidential election 
to operate upon the selfishness of some northern members, have suc- 
ceeded in crushing the right of petition itself. 

That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceed- 
ing profligacy of the late rule and of its palpable violation of both the 
spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for it 
had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a few 
historical facts. 

The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of peti- 
tion too firmly established in the habits and affections of the people, to 

* Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticat, April and May, J 838. 



need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice it, roused the 
jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to pass upon the con- 
stitution. The Virginia convention proposed, as an amendment, " that 
every freeman has a right to petition, or apply to the Legislature, for 
a redress of grievances." And this amendment, with others, was 
ordered to be forwarded to the different States, for their consideration. 
The Conventions of North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island, 
were held subsequently, and, of course, had before them the Virginia 
amendment. The North Carolina Convention adopted a declaration 
of rights, embracing the very words of the proposed amendment ; and 
this declaration was ordered to be submitted to Congress, before that 
State would enter the Union. The Conventions of New York and of 
Rhode Island incorporated in their certificates of ratification, the asser- 
tion that " Every person has a right to petition or apply to the legisla- 
ture for a redress of grievances" — using the Virginia phraseology, 
merely substituting the word person for freeman, thus claiming the 
right of petition even for slaves ; while Virginia and North Carolina 
confined it to freemen. 

The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to 
the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amend- 
ment, that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the 
freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 
and to petition Government for a redress of grievances." This amend- 
ment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of Congress 
swear to support the Constitution of the United States, they are as 
much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the right of peti- 
tion, as they are. to fulfil any other constitutional obligation. And will 
the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to maintain that they have 
not foresworn themselves, because they have abridged the right of the 
people to petition for a redress of grievances, by a rule of 
the House, and not by a law? If so, they may by a rule require every 
member, on taking his seat, to subscribe the creed of a particular 
church, and then call their Maker to witness that they are guiltless of 
making a law " respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 
the free exercise thereof." 

The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition 
after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no disposition 
of the petitions ; it prohibits their reception ; they may not be 
brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands of the 
people are debarred all access to their representatives, for the purpose 
of offering them a prayer. 



It is said lhat the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District 
are no grievances to the petitioners, and therefore they have no right to 
ask for their removal. But ihe right guaranteed by the Constitution, is 
a right to ask for the redress of grievances, whether personal, social, or 
moral. And who, except a slaveholder, will dare to contend that it is 
no grievance that our agents, our representatives, our servants, in our 
name and by our authority, enact laws erecting and licensing markets 
in the Capital of the Republic, for the sale of human beings, and con- 
verting free men into slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too 
poor to pay United States' officers the jail fees accruing from an 
iniquitous imprisonment ? 

Again, it is pretended that the the objects prayed for, arc palpably 
unconstitutional, and that therefore the petitions ought not to be received. 
And by what authority are the people deprived of their right to petition 
for any object which a majority of either House of Congress, for the 
time being, may please to regard as unconstitutional 1 If this 
usurpation be submitted to, it will not be confined to abolition petitions. 
It is well known that most of the slaveholders now insist, that all protect- 
ing duties arc unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the 
Union was nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the 
danger to which it is exposed by these petitions ! Should our Northern 
Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from 
foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent, sanc- 
tioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial, 
resolution, or other paper, praying for the imposition of duties for 
the encouragement of manufactures, shall be received by the 
House, or entertained in any way whatever." 

It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that, although 
Congress is invested by the Constitution with ''exclusive jurisdiction, 
in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, yet that it 
would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the slave-trade, and to 
emancipate the slaves in the District, that petitions for these objects 
ought not to be received. Yet this is asserted in that very House, on 
whose minutes is recorded a resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, 
with power to send for persons and papers, "to inquire into the exist- 
ence of an inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and 
through the District of Columbia, and report whether any, and what 
means are necessary for putting a stop to the same :" and another, in 
1829, instructing the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire 
into the expediency of providing by law, " for the gradual abolition of 
slavery in the District." . 

In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution, 



8 

petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the mitigation of 
the evils, and final abolition of the African slave-trade, and also pray- 
ing it, as far as it possessed the power, to take measures for the aboli- 
tion of slavery. These petitions excited the wrath and indignation of 
many of the slave-holding members, yet no one thought of refusing to 
receive them. They were referred to a select committee, at the in- 
stance of Mr. Madison, himself, who "entered into a critical review of 
the circumstances respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the 
ideas upon the limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the 
regulation of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubt- 
edly were not precluded from interposing in their importation ; and 
generally to regulate the mode in which every species of business 
shall be transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the 
Cession of Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to 
regulate the subject of slavery ; which shows that gentlemen are mis- 
taken in supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in 
the business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing 
the petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the 
proceedings of the House." — V. S. Gazette, 17th Feb., 1790. 

Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the Con- 
stitution, maintaining the power of Congress to " regulate the subject 
of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the reference of abo- 
lition petitions to a special committee. 

The committee made a report ; for which, after a long debate, was 
substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not abol- 
ish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so to regu- 
late it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves on the pas- 
sage ; and that Congress could not interfere in the emancipation or 
treatment of slaves in the States. 

This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition 
petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had been 
placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General Government. 

You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which 
a few years since prevailed on the subject of Sunday Mails. Instead 
of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the peti- 
tioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and made no 
attempt to stifle discussion. 

Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them, 
do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to 
gag the friends of freedom, under pretence of allaying agitation ? Be- 
cause conscience does make cowards of them all — because they know 
the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the light — be- 



cause they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the abominations of 
the American slave trade, the secrets of the prison-houses in Washing- 
ton and Alexandria, and the horrors of the human shambles licensed by 
the authority of Congress, will be exposed to the scorn and indignation 
of the civilized world. 

Unquestionably the late rule surpasses, in its profligate contempt of 
constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal Govern- 
ment. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay, were 
it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the expiring effort 
of desperation. When we reflect on the past subserviency of our 
northern representatives to the mandates of the slaveholders, we may 
well raise, on the present occasion, the shout of triumph, and hail the 
vote on the recent rule as the pledge of a glorious victory. Suffer us 
to recall to your recollection the majorities by which the successive 
attempts to crush the right of petition and the freedom of debate have 
been carried. 

Pinckney's Gag was passed May, 1836, by a majority of 51 
Hawes's do. . . Jan. 1837, . . 58 

Patton's do. . . Dec. 1837, . .48 

Atherton's do. . . Dec. 1838, . . .48 
Johnson's do. . . Jan. 1840, . . .0 
Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to 6, 
we need no new incentive to perseverance. 

Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional 
liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern serviles. 
The votes from j the free States in favor of the several gags were as 
follows : — 

For Pinckney's ..... 62 

For Hawes's 70 

For Patton's 52 

ForAtherton's 49 

For Johnson's ..... 28 
There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of 
the rule which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders 
have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their sev- 
eral gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were twice 
baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days together, 
compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they have so often 
declared should not be discussed. 

A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent, 

enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of the slave- 

holders. The late unwonted independence of northern politicians, and 

the deference paid by them to the wishes of their own constituents, in 

9 



iu 

preference to those of their southern colleagues, indicates the advance 
of public opinion. No less than 49 northern members of the adminis. 
tration party voted for the Atherton gag, while only 27 dared to record 
their names in favor of Johnson's ; and of the representation of SIX 
States, every vote was given against the rule, without distinction of 
party. The tone in which opposite political journals denounce the late 
outrage may warn the slaveholders that they will not much longer hold 
the north in bonds. The leading administration paper in the city of 
New York regards the rule with " utter abhorrence ;" while the offi- 
cial paper of the opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the 
names of the recreant northerners who voted for it may be " handed 
down to eternal infamy and execration." 

The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated 
contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of 
our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late William 
Leggett, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York, 
was denounced, in 1S35, by the " Democratic Republican General 
Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his 
course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed, with 
a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, " The stream of public 
opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the regurgita- 
tion will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the man who 
can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept onward by the 
deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows, had largely shared 
in occasioning. Such be my fate ; and, living or dying, it will in some 
measure be mine. I have written my name in ineffaceable letters on 
the abolition record." And he did live to behold the first swelling of 

c 

the refluent wave. The denounced abolitionist was honored by a de- 
mocratic President with a diplomatic mission ; and since his death, the 
resolution condemning him has been expunged from the minutes of 
the democratic committee. 

Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, 
what name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press 
in the accents of lamentation and panegyric ? On whose tomb have 
freedom, philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral 
wreaths 1 All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar 
with the name of Charles Follen. And who was he ? One of the 
men officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants, 
plotting insurrection and murder — and, recently, a member of the 
Executive Committee of the American Anti. Slavery Society. 

Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God 
and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the eman- 
cipation of our unhappy fellow men. kept in bondage under the autho. 






u 

rity of our own representatives — not merely for tlie overthrow of the 
human shambles erected by Congress on the national domain — but also 
for the. preservation of those great constitutional rights which were 
acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by the slaveholders and 
their northern auxiliaries. That you may remember these auxiliaries 
and avoid giving- them new opportunities of betraying your rights, we 
annex a list of their dishonored names. 

The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted 
in the affirmative on the recent Gag Rule, 

MAINE. 
Virgil I>. Parris 
Albert Smith 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

Charles G. Atherton 

Edmund Burke 

Ira A. Eastman 
Tristram Shaw 

NEW YORK. 
Nehemiah H. Earle 
John Fine 
Nathaniel Jones 
Governeur Kemble 
James de la Montayne 
John II Prentiss 
Theron K. Strong 

PENNSYLVANIA* 
John Davis 
Joseph Fornauee 
James Gerry 
George M'Cullough 
David Petri ken 
William S. Ramsey 

OHIO. 

I>. P. Leadbetter 
William Medill 
Isaac Parrish 
George Sweeney 
Jonathan Taylor 
John B. Weller 

INDIANA. 

John Davis 
George II. Prolfit 

ILLINOIS. 

John Reynolds 



12 



Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust 
more faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear 
our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason 
by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the 
slaveholders — let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the 
name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge the 
right of petition — a right without which our government would be con- 
verted into a despotism. 

We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party 
name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's freedom. 
If there are any who will not co-operate with us in laboring for the 
emancipation of the slave, surely there are none who will stand aloof 
from us while contending for the liberty of themselves, their children, 
and their children's children. 

To the rescue, then, fellow citizens ! and, trusting in Him without 
whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful 
endeavors to preserve the rights He has given us will, through His 
blessing, be crowned with success. 

Arthur Tappan, 
James G. Birnev, 
Joshua Leavitt, 
Lewis Tappan, 
Samuel E. Cornish, 
Simeon S. Jocelyn, 
La Roy Sunderland, 
Theodore S. Wright, 
Duncan Dunbar, 
James S. Gibbons, 
Henry B. Stanton, 

JV*eu> York, February 13, 1S40. 



Executive Committee 
of the 
American 
Anti-Slavery Society, 






> < > :> :> 



m 

> 

>> a 

» ■»■■ 
» -j> • 

St* a>> 



> > • • 






2> > » 

V> > j> 

V > 

> ■>:■ 
':>..•■:>• 

*■■ . _v > 

> ■"!>' 



> 2> >P.Z> 
~SX :> >;> 






> ) 

33 > 

3§>J3T- 



>3» 

3>3-3]» 

3>^> ? 



:>>»• 

3> > >:> 

Z»3 3> 

► > > r> 

► !>>■•£>' 

~> V 2> 
! 3> 

>> 1> 

► <•- 3- 1> 

► > ^> 
> T> 

-• :> a 5> 
O 3 
3> > 
2*. 3\ j> 






^P 9 ^* 

■>3 gjS - 

>3 im 

:» gf| 

I>3 EOS 
!2>"0 SSTg 

I> 3 3 



> i> 



OS'S 

5 z*'- 



i> >;£> '3^ ! > 

3S> >js> »:> 

> ^» -^» ^>^» 

>^> ^>> 3> 

> ^> x>: 

> ao ^> on 



2D I>> 

i)^ S3S, 

.TO iX3i 



;•» > >7> 



ML. 3&J» 



: 
> ^> D 

) > r 






fc>>^» 



3gJ ~ 



S33 

•o>> _ 



^> > )^ 



3>>yy>€ 



x> Z> 3 ? 






:» 3> r> 

3,. >> >Z3 

>>>> <ZJ 

5> ' ») J> 

O' X> >>!> - 13 
, ;.-t> ;> 





















2>> 7^> > 






Da 






3">3 » > >J» > 

► > «> > > . » > i> 

•> 3> > 5» 

■ 3 ."ft > ■> 



3 


3 


> 


> 


^ 


> 


> 


> 


> 




) 


" 


D 




> 




> 


! 



> > > ) > > 3> 
>> ■;> >'>' > >"> 
j> . > > > 

> i >» > > 
» ) > 
>;> •-> i ? 



> > > 

» >; 2> 

;> » >>> 

> > > 









> i 

> ■ ■ -> 2 



> ;> > > > » 
> > > » 



)) ) > x> 



• 5> 

> . > ) o 

i J » 
> . ^ ) s> 
> . o ■■> 
» ) ) ») 



> L> 2>» ^» 

>^> > > 

> .£> ~i> ) >^c ": 

> > j> ^ o^ > 
> 






> > ^ ) > > > > A . > - > 

>^ > )>> ^ > > > > 

> > > >> > > > ^ r> > , 
> > > > > > > > > > 

> ' > > > > > 

> > > o ^> > > > > 

> > ) > > , v> 2> > > 
>^o > > > > ^> > i 

> •>> > O . > ; >> > ,> ] 

> J> ) o • 3 < > > > > O 

.^>?> > b > > > i 

) 

> . , 
' » X>5 > > > > 

> >^ > > > »> ) ) > 






> ) ) > ) > 



>, 2> o ;> ; 



z> >>> r» * > -z> >-> -< <<:^ 



:> > » > > j» ^> 
3 > ;> > > ) y-> 

> :>>:> > > > 

> :> >)> » 

3 >o>2> >> 

> )^ >> , 

> >^2> » 






> 2» > r 



> > »S> r> 3 > ct 






► > :» > ) ^i> > ■ > ^ 












' ^ > > > 















J* 









> . > 



